Content uploaded by Andrzej Galbarczyk
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Andrzej Galbarczyk on Oct 23, 2017
Content may be subject to copyright.
1
Cite this article: Andrzej Galbarczyk, Anna Ziomkiewicz, Tattooed men: Healthy bad boys
and good-looking competitors, Personality and Individual Differences, Volume 106, 1
February 2017, Pages 122-125, ISSN 0191-8869,
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2016.10.051.
(http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S019188691631087X)
Tattooed men: Healthy bad boys and good-looking competitors
Andrzej Galbarczyka,*, Anna Ziomkiewiczb
a Department of Environmental Health, Jagiellonian University Medical College, 20
Grzegorzecka St., 31-531 Krakow, Poland; E-mail address: agalbarczyk@gmail.com
b Department of Anthropology, Polish Academy of Sciences Ludwik Hirszfeld Institute of
Immunology and Experimental Therapy, Podwale 75, 50-449 Wroclaw, Poland; E-mail
address: annaziomkiewicz@gmail.com
* Corresponding author: Andrzej Galbarczyk,
Institute of Public Health, Jagiellonian University Medical College
Grzegorzecka 20, 31–351 Krakow, Poland
Phone +48 12 43 32 842
Fax +48 12 421 74 47
E-mail agalbarczyk@gmail.com
© 2017. This manuscript version is made available under the CC-BY-NC-ND 4.0 license
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/
2
Abstract
Tattooing, even in modern societies, is painful and may lead to multiple health problems. It
has been hypothesized that having a tattoo might honestly signal a man’s immunocompetence
and good health. However, to date this hypothesis has largely been untested. Here we report
the results of a large population-based study, where photos of real, non-tattooed men were
digitally modified to add a tattoo and presented to 2584 men and women. Pictures with and
without tattoo were rated in several categories. Women rated tattooed versions of the pictures
as healthier, but not more or less attractive than the originals. Inversely, men rated tattooed
versions of pictures as more attractive, but not more or less healthy than the originals. Both
men and women rated pictures of men with a tattoo as more masculine, dominant and
aggressive. Women but not men assessed tattooed men as worse potential partners and parents
than non-tattooed men. Moreover, effect size comparison demonstrated that adding tattoos has
a greater impact on men’s than on women’s ratings. Our results confirm that adding tattoos
changes others’ perception of men. They also demonstrate that tattoos not only influence
female preference, but they may be even more important in male-male competition.
Keywords: Tattoo; Handicap hypothesis; Evolutionary psychology; Contest competition;
Mate choice
3
1. Introduction
Invasive body modifications such as tattooing have a long history in many cultures (Krutak,
2015) and in some populations were used to attract potential mates (Ludvico & Kurland,
1995). It has been hypothesized that such decorations are honest signals of genetic and
phenotypic quality, especially of increased pathogen resistance (Singh & Bronstad, 1997).
In preindustrial societies, tattooing was a life-threatening experience (e.g. McLean &
D’Souza, 2011) but even in modern societies tattooing is painful and may lead to multiple
health problems occurring immediately after the process of tattooing or with some time lag
(Kazandjieva & Tsankov, 2007). Most common health problems associated with tattooing
result from various, often severe, infections (Kotzen, Sell, Mathes, Dentinger, Lee, Schiff, &
Weiss, 2015; LeBlanc, Hollinger, & Klontz, 2012). Therefore, tattoos may not only signal a
man’s high pain tolerance, but also good health and immunocompetence. In fact, it has been
postulated that tattoos in men may act as a handicap signal (sensu Zahavi, 1975) and influence
how they are perceived by others (Singh & Bronstad, 1997). So far, the only attempt to verify
these hypotheses has been done using virtual human characters (Wohlrab, Fink, Kappeler, &
Brewer, 2009). This study showed that having a tattoo may signal both biological and
behavioural traits: tattooed male characters were perceived as healthier by women than by
men, and more dominant both by men and women. Virtual human characters only weakly
represent natural variation in human body appearance, thus, it is unclear if results of such
studies can be extrapolated to judgments of real people. To our knowledge, effects of
tattooing using pictures of real men have been studied only once (Seiter & Hatch, 2005). This
study found that male model attractiveness ratings were not affected by adding a tattoo.
However, this study was small (n=74) and results were not adjusted for sex of the person
evaluating the pictures.
4
Here we report results from large (n=2 584) population-based study, where photos of real men
were modified by adding a tattoo. Based on hypothesis by Singh and Bronstad (1997), we
predicted that adding a tattoo to photos of real, non-tattooed men will alter their perceived
personality and physical appearance.
There are two mechanisms of sexual selection: mate choice and contest competition between
males, and it has been hypothesized that male contests are the main forms of sexual selection
in humans (Puts, 2010). Given that women assess men as potential partners, while men assess
other men as potential same-sex rivals, we predicted that adding a tattoo will differently and
with varying intensity affect ratings by female and male participants. Specifically, we
hypothesized that female participants should rate tattooed versions of the pictures as more
attractive, healthy, masculine, dominant and aggressive but less suitable as partners or fathers
than the originals. Simultaneously, male participants should rate pictures of men with tattoo as
more masculine, dominant and aggressive than pictures of men without tattoo. Moreover,
adding tattoos should have a greater impact on men’s than on women’s ratings.
2. Methods
We photographed nine shirtless men from the waist up (mean age= 25.1, standard deviation
[SD] = 6.15, range 19–35 years). For each picture, the lighting and background were kept
constant. Each model stood in the same pose with a neutral, non-smiling facial expression.
None of the models had a tattoo. A professional photographer digitally modified the pictures
by adding a black arm tattoo with an abstract, neutral design in Adobe Photoshop CS6 (Figure
1).
5
Fig. 1 Two versions of one of stimulus pictures, original (A) and modified (B)
Data were collected by an online survey advertised in social media (e.g. Facebook) as a
‘‘male attractiveness study.’’ We included in the analysis responses obtained from 2369
exclusively heterosexual woman (mean age= 24.6; SD= 4.59) and 215 exclusively
heterosexual men (mean age= 25.5; SD= 5.39) from Poland. Participants viewed each of the 9
models once. We asked participants to rate a randomly selected version of each pictures. Each
participant rated at least one original and one modified version. Participants rated each
pictures for attractiveness, health, masculinity, dominance, aggression, good potential partner
and good potential father on a five-point semantic differential scale (e.g. 1 = very unattractive;
5 = very attractive).
For each participant, we calculated the mean scores of original and modified versions of
pictures in each category. We analysed differences between mean ratings of original versions
pictures of men without tattoos and modified versions with tattoo in each category in
dependent samples t-tests. For each significant outcome we have additionally calculated an
effect size (Cohen’s d) and the associated 95% confidence intervals (CI). In a meta-analysis
6
(the fixed-effect model) we have compared mean effect sizes of men and women ratings. All
analyses were performed in Statistica version 12.0. The research protocol was approved by
the Bioethics Committee.
3. Results
Women rated tattooed versions of the pictures as healthier, but not more or less attractive than
the original. Inversely, men rated tattooed versions of pictures as more attractive, but not more
or less healthy than the original. Both men and women rated pictures of men with a tattoo as
more masculine, dominant and aggressive. Women assessed tattooed men as worse potential
partners and parents than non-tattooed men, but having a tattoo did not influence men’s
ratings in those categories (Table 1).
Table 1 Differences between mean ratings of original versions pictures of men without tattoos and modified versions with
added tattoo (dependent samples t-tests).
Women’s ratings (n=2 369)
Men’s ratings (n=215)
Males
with
tattoo
Males
without
tattoo
Males
with
tattoo
Males
without
tattoo
Mean
(SD)
Mean
(SD)
t
p
Cohen's
d
95% CI
Mean
(SD)
Mean
(SD)
t
p
Cohen's
d
95% CI
Attractiveness
2.53
(0.72)
2.53
(0.72)
-0.01
.996
2.80
(0.64)
2.66
(0.68)
2.66
.008
0.23
0.06 – 0.39
Health
3.43
(0.53)
3.39
(0.56)
3.13
.002
0.07
0.03 – 0.12
3.42
(0.57)
3.40
(0.53)
0.51
.608
Masculinity
3.56
(0.54)
3.52
(0.56)
2.71
.007
0.07
0.02 – 0.12
3.62
(0.48)
3.54
(0.49)
2.01
.045
0.16
0.00 – 0.33
Dominance
2.92
(0.51)
2.77
(0.52)
10.04
<.001
0.29
0.23 – 0.35
3.02
(0.51)
2.84
(0.49)
3.84
<.001
0.36
0.17 – 0.55
Aggression
2.45
(0.50)
2.29
(0.51)
12.55
<.001
0.31
0.26 – 0.37
2.65
(0.55)
2.47
(0.52)
3.91
<.001
0.34
0.15 – 0.52
Good partner
3.01
(0.69)
3.09
(0.70)
-5.73
<.001
-0.12
0.07 – 0.16
3.25
(0.53)
3.30
(0.58)
-1.06
.289
Good father
3.11
(0.63)
3.19
(0.64)
-5.54
<.001
-0.13
0.08 – 0.17
3.28
(0.55)
3.28
(0.57)
-0.13
.900
Mean effect size, calculated from the absolute values of Cohen's d of each significant
difference, was greater for men (mean Cohen's d =0.26, 95% CI from 0.18 to 0.35) than for
women (mean Cohen's d =0.15, 95% CI from 0.15 to 0.17). Moreover, differences between
7
these two mean effect sizes for men and for women were statistically significant (Q=5.78,
p=0.01), which means that the effect size was related to the sex of the participant.
4. Discussion
Our results demonstrate that women interpret tattoo ornamentation as a signal of better health.
Similar results have been demonstrated in the study on virtual human characters (Wohlrab et
al., 2009) where women rated virtually created 3-D silhouettes of males. Their ratings on the
dimension of health were significantly higher when silhouettes had added tattoos.
It has been previously shown that, among men, individuals with tattoos and/or
nonconventional body piercings are more symmetrical than individuals without invasive body
modifications (Koziel, Kretschmer, & Pawlowski, 2010). Low level of asymmetry is proposed
as a signal of good health, developmental stability and genetic quality (e.g. Jones, Little,
Penton-Voak, Tiddeman, Burt, & Perrett, 2001), thus this finding suggests better health and
higher biological quality of tattooed or pierced men. Furthermore, given that tattooing may
still be a challenge for health and consequential for survival, a tattoo may be considered as a
handicap signal (Zahavi, 1975). Women may favour tattooed men as more valuable partners
with potentially better health. Interestingly, it has also been shown that repeated tattooing may
be related to potential health benefits, by strengthening immunological responses (Lynn,
Dominguez, & Decaro, 2016).
We have also shown that women rated tattooed men as more masculine, dominant and
aggressive. These testosterone related characteristics are commonly associated with good
health (reviewed in Scott, Clark, Boothroyd, & Penton-Voak, 2013). According to the
immunocompetence hypothesis, since testosterone suppresses immune function (Grossman,
1985), only immunocompetent individuals can afford high levels of testosterone and are
8
capable of exhibiting exaggerated testosterone-related features (Folstad & Karter, 1992;
Muehlenbein & Bribiescas, 2005).
Besides good health, testosterone-related characteristics may also be associated with other
male qualities potentially desirable by women. For example, women who face an elevated risk
of violence and crime prefer aggressive and dominant males for a long-term relationship,
since they can provide protection for them and their offspring (Snyder, Fessler, Tiokhin,
Frederick, Lee & Navarrete, 2011). It has been also shown that dominance in men is a good
predictor of success in some hierarchies (Mueller & Mazur, 1996) and therefore may
guarantee better access to resources.
Because a strong correlation between health and attractiveness should be expected (see
Grammer, Fink, Møller, & Thornhill, 2003), it may seem surprising that women in our study
did not find tattooed men more attractive. However, in our study, only general attractiveness
was assessed. Women may perceive tattooed men as more attractive only when evaluating
attractiveness for short-term relationships, as it was shown for masculinity preferences (e.g.
Little, Connely, Feinberg, Jones, & Roberts, 2011). This is supported by a study showing that
women found men with posttraumatic facial scarring as more attractive for short-term
relationships but not for long-term relationships (Burriss, Rowland, & Little, 2009).
On the other hand, higher perceived masculinity, aggression and dominance in tattooed men
may explain why those men are not perceived as more attractive. Although aggression might
be a signal of better general biological quality that allows for successful competition and
resource acquisition, it might also constitute a threat for a female and her future offsprings’
survival. For example, men with high testosterone levels more often have extramarital sex and
more often exhibit aggressive behaviour towards their wives (Booth & Dabbs, Jr., 1993).
More masculine men are judged as those who spend more time and resources on mate
acquisition than on paternal investment (Kruger, 2006). Given that there is no clear
9
correlation between testosterone-related traits and attractiveness (reviewed in Scott et al.,
2013), it is understandable why women in our study ignore the presence of the tattoo during
the evaluation of the attractiveness. However, the dark side of testosterone-related features
perfectly explains why women assessed tattooed men as worse potential partners and parents.
Moreover, our finding that women did not find tattooed men more or less attractive is in
agreement with previous studies showing that women from healthier populations have weaker
preferences toward male masculinity (DeBruine, Jones, Crawford, Welling, & Little, 2010).
Women are willing to pay costs associated with choosing a masculine partner only if they are
outweighed by benefits of having a healthier partner and healthier offspring in an environment
where health, in general, is poor. Further analyses have shown that cross-cultural variation in
women's preferences for masculinity is better predicted by national income inequality, which
is an important determinant not only of national health status but also male–male competition
and violence (Brooks, Scott, Maklakov, Kasumovic, Clark & Penton-Voak, 2011). Poland is a
country with relatively low health risks and where competitive aggression between males is
not crucial for their wealth and status, thus it is not surprising that the presence of tattoo in
Polish men does not influence their attractiveness in the eyes of women.
What may seem surprising is that male participants of our study rated tattooed men not only
as more masculine, dominant and aggressive, but also as more attractive. Since all participants
were exclusively heterosexual, we could assume that they judged the photographed men as
potential same-sex rivals. We may, thus, hypothesize that men believe that tattoos are
attractive to women. Thus, men’s judgment of other men’s attractiveness may be based more
on cultural stereotypes regarding women’s perception of men attractiveness. Moreover, this
belief may even work for them: it has been shown in the prospective study, that men have
significantly higher body appreciation and self-esteem after obtaining their first tattoo
(Swami, 2011).
10
It has been postulated that human males possess several traits which function is to threaten
and exclude rivals from mating opportunities. This may indicate that male contests have been
very important in human evolution (reviewed in Puts, 2010). For instance, dominance and the
traits favoured by male contests predicted men’s mating success, but the traits favoured by
female choice did not (Hill et al., 2013). Men have very good ability to estimate the physical
strength and fighting ability of other men based on photos of their bodies or even from photos
of their faces (Sell, Cosmides, Tooby, Sznycer, von Rueden & Gurven, 2009). It is thus
possible that men’s tattoos may not only attract the opposite sex as a signal of good health,
but also intimidate rivals of the same sex as a signal of fitness and physical preponderance.
In our study the presence of a tattoo influenced men’s ratings only in those categories that
could be related to intrasexual competition. The presence of a tattoo did not influenced men’s
ratings of health and whether judged males would be good potential fathers or potential
partners. Considering men’s reproductive strategies, we would expect they should not pay
attention to if a tattooed man would be a good partner or a good father, who would pass good
health to his children. However, it would be important to assess if a tattooed man would be a
threat and competition for them.
Our results support that tattoos may have a dual function: they influence female preference,
but also are likely to be important in male-male competition. Very often those two functions
cannot be separated (Zahavi, 1975). However, effect size comparison demonstrated that
tattoos have a greater impact on men’s than on women’s ratings. Given that, we can assume
that a role of tattoos in male-male competition is more important than their role in the female
choice, at least in the population studied. It seems that men are tattooing themselves to
compete with other males rather than to be chosen by potential mates.
It is worth noticing that most of the differences between ratings of tattooed and non-tattooed
men, while statistically significant, are relatively small. This may be related to our method of
11
modifying pictures. We have added only one relatively small and neutral arm tattoo. It is
likely that more spectacular body modifications and/or its different body localisation would
result in higher differences in ratings. Further, testosterone-related characteristics such as
better (presumably heritable) health and higher aggression and dominance may no longer be
essential in developed societies. Our findings may be just a remnant of evolutionary strategies
from the past, when these traits were much more important and tattooing was much more
risky without modern sanitary practices. We believe that our results show relatively weak but
evolutionarily-based and still important patterns. Further research is needed to clarify if cross-
cultural variation in perception of tattooed men exists, for example similar to the previously
mentioned variation in women's preferences for masculinity (DeBruine et al., 2010).
Moreover, the limitation of this study was that we did not obtain information from
participants whether they had tattoos themselves. Future research can also extend the present
findings by examining whether participants’ dominance level, self-judged attractiveness or
relationship status had an effect on perception of tattooed men.
In conclusion, our results identified two important sexual selection mechanisms that may
support tattooing in men. First, intersexual selection mechanism: women perceive tattoos as a
signal of good health, masculinity, aggressiveness and dominance. In certain ecological
conditions they may thus favour tattooed men as more valuable partners with potentially
better health and higher social rank. Second, intrasexual selection mechanism: men perceive
tattoos of other men as a signal of attractiveness, masculinity, aggressiveness and dominance.
Therefore, they may assess those traits as indicators of higher threat of the same-sex rival. Our
results provide stronger evidence for the second, intrasexual selection mechanism, as the
presence of a tattoo affected male viewers’ perceptions of a male subject more intensely than
female viewers’ perceptions.
12
Acknowledgements
We would like to thank Marcin Przybylko, Radoslaw Starzycki, Karolina Milkowska, Iwona
Klęk, Jowita Plich, Sebastian Starba and Sylwia Kowalczyk for their help in project
realization. We are grateful to all who volunteered as our models and to all study participants.
We are also grateful for helpful comments from Laura Klein, Magdalena Klimek and Grazyna
Jasienska. Funding: This project was financially supported by the grant K/ZDS/004696 from
The Ministry of Science and Higher Education (Poland).
References
Booth, A., & Dabbs, Jr., J. M. (1993). Testosterone and men’s marriages. Social Forces,
72(2), 463–477. http://doi.org/10.2307/2579857
Brooks, R., Scott, I. M., Maklakov, A. A., Kasumovic, M. M., Clark, A. P., & Penton-Voak,
I. S. (2011). National income inequality predicts women’s preferences for masculinized
faces better than health does. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London B: Biological
Sciences, 278(1707), 810–812. http://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2010.0964
Burriss, R. P., Rowland, H. M., & Little, A. C. (2009). Facial scarring enhances men’s
attractiveness for short-term relationships. Personality and Individual Differences, 46(2),
213–217. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2008.09.029
DeBruine, L. M., Jones, B. C., Crawford, J. R., Welling, L. L. M., & Little, A. C. (2010). The
health of a nation predicts their mate preferences: cross-cultural variation in women’s
preferences for masculinized male faces. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London B:
Biological Sciences, 277(1692), 2405–10. http://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2009.2184
Folstad, I., & Karter, A. J. (1992). Parasites, Bright Males, and the Immunocompetence
Handicap. The American Naturalist, 139(3), 603–622. http://doi.org/10.1086/285346
Grammer, K., Fink, B., Møller, A. P., & Thornhill, R. (2003). Darwinian aesthetics: sexual
selection and the biology of beauty. Biological Reviews, 78(3), 385–407.
http://doi.org/10.1017/S1464793102006085
Grossman, C. J. (1985). Interactions between the gonadal steroids and the immune system.
Science (New York, N.Y.), 227(4684), 257–261. http://doi.org/10.1126/science.3871252
Hill, A. K., Hunt, J., Welling, L. L. M., Cárdenas, R. A., Rotella, M. A., Wheatley, J. R., …
Puts, D. A. (2013). Quantifying the strength and form of sexual selection on men’s traits.
Evolution and Human Behavior, 34(5), 334–341.
http://doi.org/10.1016/j.evolhumbehav.2013.05.004
Jones, B. C., Little, A. C., Penton-Voak, I. S., Tiddeman, B. P., Burt, D. M., & Perrett, D. I.
(2001). Facial symmetry and judgements of apparent health: Support for a “good genes”
explanation of the attractiveness-symmetry relationship. Evolution and Human Behavior,
22(6), 417–429. http://doi.org/10.1016/S1090-5138(01)00083-6
13
Kazandjieva, J., & Tsankov, N. (2007). Tattoos: dermatological complications. Clinics in
Dermatology, 25(4), 375–382. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.clindermatol.2007.05.012
Kotzen, M., Sell, J., Mathes, R. W., Dentinger, C., Lee, L., Schiff, C., & Weiss, D. (2015).
Using syndromic surveillance to investigate tattoo-related skin infections in New York
City. PLoS ONE, 10(6). http://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0130468
Koziel, S., Kretschmer, W., & Pawlowski, B. (2010). Tattoo and piercing as signals of
biological quality. Evolution and Human Behavior, 31(3), 187–192.
http://doi.org/10.1016/j.evolhumbehav.2009.09.009
Kruger, D. J. (2006). Male facial masculinity influences attributions of personality and
reproductive strategy. Personal Relationships, 13(4), 451–463.
http://doi.org/10.1111/j.1475-6811.2006.00129.x
Krutak, L. (2015). The cultural heritage of tattooing: A brief history. Current Problems in
Dermatology (Switzerland). http://doi.org/10.1159/000369174
LeBlanc, P. M., Hollinger, K. a., & Klontz, K. C. (2012). Tattoo Ink–Related Infections —
Awareness, Diagnosis, Reporting, and Prevention. New England Journal of Medicine,
367(11), 985–987. http://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMp1206063
Little, A. C., Connely, J., Feinberg, D. R., Jones, B. C., & Roberts, S. C. (2011). Human
preference for masculinity differs according to context in faces, bodies, voices, and smell.
Behavioral Ecology, 22(4), 862–868. http://doi.org/10.1093/beheco/arr061
Ludvico, L. R., & Kurland, J. A. (1995). Symbolic or not-so-symbolic wounds: The
behavioral ecology of human scarification. Ethology and Sociobiology, 16(2), 155–172.
http://doi.org/10.1016/0162-3095(94)00075-I
Lynn, C. D., Dominguez, J. T., & Decaro, J. A. (2016). Tattooing to “Toughen up”: Tattoo
experience and secretory immunoglobulin A. American Journal of Human Biology, (in
press), http://doi.org/10.1002/ajhb.22847
McLean, M., & D’Souza, A. (2011). Life-threatening cellulitis after traditional Samoan
tattooing. Australian and New Zealand Journal of Public Health, 35(1), 27–29.
http://doi.org/10.1111/j.1753-6405.2010.00658.x
Muehlenbein, M. P., & Bribiescas, R. G. (2005). Testosterone-mediated immune functions
and male life histories. American Journal of Human Biology. 17(5), 527-58
http://doi.org/10.1002/ajhb.20419
Mueller, U., & Mazur, A. (1996). Facial dominance of West Point cadets as a predictor of
later military rank. Social Forces, 74, 823–850. http://doi.org/10.2307/2580383
Puts, D. A. (2010). Beauty and the beast: Mechanisms of sexual selection in humans.
Evolution and Human Behavior, 31(3), 157–175.
http://doi.org/10.1016/j.evolhumbehav.2010.02.005
Scott, I. M. L., Clark, A. P., Boothroyd, L. G., & Penton-Voak, I. S. (2013). Do men’s faces
really signal heritable immunocompetence? Behavioral Ecology. 24(3), 579-589
http://doi.org/10.1093/beheco/ars092
14
Seiter, J., & Hatch, S. (2005). Effects of Tattoos on Perceptions of Credibility and
Attractiveness. Psychological Reports, 96(3 Pt 2), 1113–20.
http://doi.org/10.2466/pr0.96.3c.1113-1120
Sell, A., Cosmides, L., Tooby, J., Sznycer, D., von Rueden, C., & Gurven, M. (2009). Human
adaptations for the visual assessment of strength and fighting ability from the body and
face. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London B: Biological Sciences, 276(1656), 575–
584. http://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2008.1177
Singh, D., & Bronstad, P. M. (1997). Sex differences in the anatomical locations of human
body scarification and tattooing as a function of pathogen prevalence. Evolution and
Human Behavior. 18(6), 403–416 . http://doi.org/10.1016/S1090-5138(97)00089-5
Snyder, J. K., Fessler, D. M. T., Tiokhin, L., Frederick, D. A., Lee, S. W., & Navarrete, C. D.
(2011). Trade-offs in a dangerous world: Women’s fear of crime predicts preferences for
aggressive and formidable mates. Evolution and Human Behavior, 32(2), 127–137.
http://doi.org/10.1016/j.evolhumbehav.2010.08.007
Swami, V. (2011). Marked for life? A prospective study of tattoos on appearance anxiety and
dissatisfaction, perceptions of uniqueness, and self-esteem. Body Image, 8(3), 237–244.
http://doi.org/10.1016/j.bodyim.2011.04.005
Wohlrab, S., Fink, B., Kappeler, P. M., & Brewer, G. (2009). Perception of human body
modification. Personality and Individual Differences, 46(2), 202–206.
http://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2008.09.031
Zahavi, A. (1975). Mate selection-A selection for a handicap. Journal of Theoretical Biology,
53(1), 205–214.